SAMUEL AWUKU v. SULEMAN MAMUNI & ANOTHER

OFOE, JA

The facts of this case are not in dispute. The plaintiff/respondent on the 9th of November 2003 about 10.40pm in the environs of Afienya was negligently knocked down by the 1st defendant/appellant who was then in charge of a cargo truck loaded with foodstuffs from the north. The plaintiff sustained massive injuries for which he was eventually transferred from the Tema General Hospital to Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. From the evidence before the court he suffered extensive injuries and after intensive treatment at Korle Bu Teaching Hospital he is out with deformities I will mention presently. The next of kin, as would be expected, sued the defendants claiming damages for the said injuries. The trial court made the following award:

GH179.30 for medical expenses

Interest on (a) from July 2004 to date of payment

GH 10m general and compensatory damages

Cost of GH10, 000.

In making this award all the trial judge did was quoting the High Court case of Quarcoo vrs Appiah (1972) 2GLR 30 and stating the principles on assessment of damages as applied therein by His Lordship Justice Abban, (as he then was) and continued:

“Reparation in this context I understand to be compensation for the wrongful act of the tortfeasor. What reparation should a boy who was three years old and who by the wrongful act of the 1st defendant has been rendered completely a sub human being for the rest of his life? The compensation should cover pain and suffering: incapacity and loss of amenities of life”

From the evidence I would make the following awards as reparation”

He then proceeded to make the awards I have quoted earlier.

The defendants are aggrieved at the award and are in this court praying that we reverse the decision of the trial court. From the submissions made by their counsel it is clear to us that they are not denying the fact that plaintiff is entitled to damages. What they are really contending is that the quantum of the award made by the trial judge is on the extremely high side.

Their grounds of appeal (1) and (2) provide as follows:

1. The general and compensatory damages awarded are manifestly excessive and ought to be set aside.

2. Cost awarded is excessive.

We are here being called upon to review the evidence and if permissible by the authorities interfere with the said award, set it aside and make that which suits the circumstances of the case.

We need to remind ourselves that an appeal, as is common legal knowledge is by way of rehearing and